pintsize: The supervillain we spent our teenage years trying to catch?

what are you talking about, why don’t I remember this?

Danygalw

*What’s* that, not who. She just, uh, didn’t hear?

Sara Finn

wait … they’re only just asking that now? Given he was the heavy hitter of the enemy, isn’t that a little like asking if Adolf Hitler went down, ten years after they bombed the bunker and declared an armistance? But who am I to argue? I love the comic 😀

Strawman

I got it as “were they there at the party”, which is still weird because Alison told the other guys she never saw them and what they looked like before escaping.

Lysiuj

But it’s more like, was Hitler watching from the sidelines at x battle. Cause it doesn’t make much of a difference either way, it’s more of an anecdote than anything.
Likewise, “Was Menace present at The Battle of the Lost Save Card”.

ampg

That’s how I read it, too.

Strawman

“I wasn’t going to say awesome, I was going to say ‘murder-joyous’. What Amanda just said about neutralizing henchmen? That’s an euphemism. The automatons Brad obliterated? Euphemism. The psychic ice spider we crashed the jet into? Euphemism for four people. Same number of legs.”

Dean

“They were wearing a spider costume, though. I think they were rehearsing a pantomime.”

Lysiuj

“We’re Spiderman! Get it?”

“… All these normies think they’re superheroes now, we’ve gotta teach them the hard way that they aren’t.”

Strawman

“Why are we storming the Darkwinter Circus Show Cross-America Tour of 2006 again?”
“Though we may have halted the end of the world seven times, it has yet to be relived of its greatest peril: clowns.”
“Brad it was just a movie”

BruceGee1962

Does anybody else get the feeling that Strawman is reading a different comic than the rest of us are?

Lysiuj

Hearing about superhero exploits was awesome, hearing about her basically-ex-boyfriend not so much.

Oh! thats who Clevin reminds me of. those glasses, his hair, his attitude, he’s really similar to Alizon’s dad

Ordinary Tree

FREUD WAS RIIIIIIGHT!

Eva Smiljanić

I mean it’s a very common phenomenon. A child will typically construct an idea of what they should be from the same-sex parent, while constructing the idea of what their date should be from the opposite-sex one. At least in classical neurodevelopment theories. Idk what happens when someone has a single parent or is gay.

Kid Chaos

Oh, great, they had to drop the M-word. 👿

Darkoneko Hellsing

Way to read the mood, kiddo.

Cyrano111

It’s a perfectly innocent question as far as Hector knows.

Walter

Al, you can’t get mad about them bringing up your ex if nobody knew you were a thing.

Lysiuj

(Including the two of them).

MisterTeatime

(Oh, Patrick knew. That was part of the problem.)

Lysiuj

Yeah, I meant more in the sense of ‘neither one of them could admit they had feelings for the other and just get together already’. (Not that I think that would have been healthy for either of them mind you…)

Arkone Axon

I agree with you there. I think Patrick deliberately tried to push her away specifically because he’s afraid of his own feelings for her. Not wanting to admit he was in love with her too.

Cyrano111

Does she look mad to you? I don’t get that vibe.

A. Middleton

Yeah, I think it’s more a “…wait, why are you mentioning Menace?”, maybe a little nervous or suspicious given the madness in her ethics class and his attempts to involve himself in the startup [money donations, etc].

Jshadow

Question:

Why aren’t we SHOWN allthe things that these super heroes have been doing/done and are instead talking about it?
This is a comic, a visual medium and it’s violating one of its prime rules: SHOW, DON’T TELL.

CityFace

Because that’s not what the comic is about. We’re seeing what we need to see, the ex-heroes talking about with their memories of what happened and dealing with them. This is especially important when their memories conflict. If we see what happened, we KNOW, we know who’s right and wrong; but they were there and don’t necessarily know themselves.

If this were a different kind of story, or a different point in the story, flashbacks might work, but this isn’t about the heroics, it’s about the reminiscing over cocktails.

Jshadow

See that’s the thing. Those conflicting memories could’ve been used for a “He said, she said” joke and it would probably have been funny.

Guilherme Carvalho

That’s stil the point: people hanging around and talking IS what’s happening, while Al and Clevin – and now the reference to Menace – are the main subject matter.

Jshadow

I was refering to the previous pages not this one specifically, it’s okay, but the last 2 just feel boring because people are just talking about events that we have no idea about, ones we would rather see.

The only reason why I’m asking about it on this update is because nobody would reply on the comment in the outdated pages.

ampg

We do see flashbacks when they serve the story. In this case, the recounting of it is the important part.

Jshadow

Sometimes even non-story progressive flashback can work, if they’re supposed to be funny.

Zorae42

It’s because their reminiscing wasn’t the main focus. It was on Alison making sure Klevin was okay.

lilyk

I know things are about to get serious (and I’m hyped and concerned at the same time), but I just wanted to say that Alison looks so adorable in the middle panel. 🙂

Ptorq

I was just thinking she looked REALLY cute in the next-to-last panel.

I don’t mean “beautiful”, I don’t mean “sexy”, I mean “she reminds me of a kitten”. She’s even doing that kitty-kiss thing where they rub the side of their face against you.

sagelynaive

HEY GUYS THERE’S THAT SHOE WE WERE WAITING FOR

Johnny Awesome

I think if Menace returns (as pure evil, as many here suspect), I’m hoping that powerless Klevin is ignored by him during the big fight… and Klevin ends up punching Menace in the head and knocking him out and saving the day when all looks hopeless. That would be a great twist and would balance the scales of life a bit.

And then he can announce that he’s actually Batman

Arkone Axon

What would be Menace’s motive?

Johnny Awesome

Evil

Arkone Axon

Doesn’t he have to grow a goatee and tie Alison’s sister to some train tracks, before we can start accusing him of cliched villainy?

Why do I suddenly have a flashback to that old man Moonshadow murdered because she believed he was abusing his wife?

“What did you just say?”

“What’s that?”

Edit: Actually, another vision came to me right after posting this. The scene in “Iron Fist” where Harold kills poor Kyle with the ice cream scoop. From happy sweet smiling to murderous rage within two seconds of Kyle innocently saying the wrong thing…

Danygalw

“believed”

Arkone Axon

It’s called “innocent until proven guilty.” Also known as “why this guy was eventually released and his “victim” was charged with attempted murder.”

(And no, I’m not claiming the old woman is even remotely similar to the woman in this case. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not a good idea to respond to “person is accused of crime” with “PUNISH THE PERSON IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THEY’RE OBVIOUSLY GUILTY.” It worries me that this is still a matter for debate)

Todd

Strawman fallacy: Moonshadow does apparently do research, and the comic made it not ambiguous that the boys and judge she murdered had raped and/or physical assaulted others (not to mention her not immediately and directly doing the same to Furnace because of her investigation of his actions).

It’s fairly obvious she hasn’t followed the pretty big leap of logic you incorrectly ascribe to her.

Arkone Axon

You mean when she used sodium pentathol to obtain confessions (Which are inadmissible in court for a reason), tried to slice Alison’s throat just to see if she could (accompanied by a litany of deliberately nasty comments denying both Alison’s very humanity and femininity), and ultimately declared she has no problems with murdering an innocent person because she’s “not afraid to make a mistake?”

Her “research” is spotty, her methodology is flawed, and her strategy is beyond counterproductive (if she wanted to do something, she should be using her powers to expose conspiracies and bring evidence to light. How many hard drives could she have handed over to the equivalent of Wikileaks by now, exposing the true intentions of corrupt judges and attorneys, of college administrators, etc? Or the records of those mercenaries and which government agencies and officials hired them?). She’s a serial killer doing what serial killers do: looking for victims whose murders they can justify.

The reality: given the intro to Chapter 5 and the reaction of the young woman and her family, the boys were not simply accused then tracked down and murdered by Moonshadow. I don’t have time to look it up now, but I think we’re even informed there was a trial and the boys were acquitted.

You’re arguing a point that has no bearing on the matter at hand as if it were, in fact, the matter at hand: strawman.

I’ll go into the other points you made in your reply to me later.

Arkone Axon

Okay… first of all, saying “strawman” whenever you disagree with someone doesn’t make it so, just as calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a five legged cat.

“Strawman fallacy” is when you create an inaccurate version of what’s being argued by the other side, and then destroy that argument with your own rhetoric… even though the argument you’ve destroyed has nothing to do with what’s actually being said by the other side. When I say something you disagree with (such as whether or not Moonshadow does research beyond “some boys were acquitted of rape, therefore it’s throat slitting time”), you can call it an incorrect assertion and provide evidence to support it. But it’s not a strawman. Focus on the facts, the evidence: is she or is she not justified in vigilantism?

Regarding the boys… yeah, there’s plenty of indication that they’re guilty (given their stupid fratboy banter shortly before being murdered). But even if they were genuinely guilty, the jury themselves were not presented with a convincing argument (and there have been plenty of cases where genuinely innocent people have been saved by juries in spite of biased judges, and even “jury nullification” in the case of unjust laws such as drug prohibition). And if their “not guilty” verdict was the result of corruption on the part of the judge, district attorney, and/or defense attorney… then Moonshadow has done NOTHING to help the situation. There’s still corrupt lawyers taking part in future trials, and now even if Moonshadow DOES swipe their computer records, financial details, recordings of conversations in country clubs with an invisible woman holding a tape recorder five feet away, etc, they can now dismiss it as something created by a serial killer. She’s destroyed her own credibility.

Todd

As you can see from my reply to Lisa, I disagree with her, but I’m not accusing her of creating a strawman.

As for your point about a lack of a convincing argument leading to acquittal, was that actually what happened in the story? I don’t recall, but I might have easily missed something.

However, I do know that any corruption of the various officials involved was not at all mentioned in the story, so why bring it up?

(BTW, I see you haven’t mentioned various ideologies eg anti-feminism that could quite easily have been prevalent enough in enough of the people involved, not to mention the system itself, so as to make an acquittal a reasonably expected result regardless of the prosecution.)

Has Moonshadow really “done nothing to help the situation”? I have my doubts. So long as there is at least one masculinist/anti-feminist out there who has decided against raping a woman for fear of Moonshadow’s retribution, I’d call that a help. Of course, we’ll never really know. Furthermore, will her act positively affect people on a more collective level eg the political? It might or might not; it could even make things worse. We’ll just have to see (and, given this is only a comic-book world with as much a future as its creators want it to have, we might never find out to our satisfaction).

“You mean when she used sodium pentathol to obtain confessions”

Not exactly. That’s more like the last bit of research (and she did leave him alive, which strongly suggests she was convinced he was innocent). BTW, I find it interesting that you, whose standard response seems to be “innocent until proven guilty”, are quick to assume she used sodium pentathol multiple times when we only have evidence of her using it once . . . .

“she’s ‘not afraid to make a mistake?'”

That’s true: she might make a mistake. So far, AFAWCT, she’s 100% spot-on.

Re: flawed research and methodology:

Remember: AFAWCT 100%.

“if she wanted to do something, she should be using her powers to expose conspiracies and bring evidence to light.”

Last I checked, rape and murder rarely involve conspiracies, even in comic-book worlds.

“How many hard drives . . . ?”

If this comic-book world is close to ours, plain truth, while reasonably helpful, is nowhere near as effective against plain ideology.

Maybe this comic-book world is different, but, last I looked, serial killers don’t usually look for victims they can justify; they just look for victims. She’s very obviously not doing that.

Re: presumption of innocence and due process:

Neither of these points, valid (as far as they go) as they are in themselves, have anything to do with your initial characterization of Moonshadow which prompted my response.

Todd

(OK, it seems Disqus has once again marked a lengthy reply as spam. Let’s try this)

As you can see from my reply to Lisa, I disagree with her, but I’m not accusing her of creating a strawman.

As for your point about a lack of a convincing argument leading to acquittal, was that actually what happened in the story? I don’t recall, but I might have easily missed something.

However, I do know that any corruption of the various officials involved was not at all mentioned in the story, so why bring it up?

(BTW, I see you haven’t mentioned various ideologies eg anti-feminism that could quite easily have been prevalent enough in enough of the people involved, not to mention the system itself, so as to make an acquittal a reasonably expected result regardless of the prosecution.)

Has Moonshadow really “done nothing to help the situation”? I have my doubts. So long as there is at least one masculinist/anti-feminist out there who has decided against raping a woman for fear of Moonshadow’s retribution, I’d call that a help. Of course, we’ll never really know. Furthermore, will her act positively affect people on a more collective level eg the political? It might or might not; it could even make things worse. We’ll just have to see (and, given this is only a comic-book world with as much a future as its creators want it to have, we might never find out to our satisfaction).

(cont’d)

Todd

(cont’d from above)

“You mean when she used sodium pentathol to obtain confessions”

Not exactly. That’s more like the last bit of research (and she did leave him alive, which strongly suggests she was convinced he was innocent). BTW, I find it interesting that you, whose standard response seems to be “innocent until proven guilty”, are quick to assume she used sodium pentathol multiple times when we only have evidence of her using it once . . . .

“tried to slice Alison’s throat just to see if she could”

What does this have to do with my point about research?

“she’s ‘not afraid to make a mistake?'”

That’s true: she might make a mistake. So far, AFAWCT, she’s 100% spot-on.

Re: flawed research and methodology:

Remember: AFAWCT 100%.

“if she wanted to do something, she should be using her powers to expose conspiracies and bring evidence to light.”

Last I checked, rape and murder rarely involve conspiracies, even in comic-book worlds.

“How many hard drives . . . ?”

If this comic-book world is close to ours, plain truth, while reasonably helpful, is nowhere near as effective against plain ideology.

We don’t know if she’s used it more than once – but we do know she used it at least once. And has openly boasted that her actual kill count is far higher than anyone suspects (she simply stopped being subtle in the last few months).

2: Attempting to slice Alison’s throat has nothing to do with research – it has everything to do with her state of mind. Even Moonshadow herself realized, at least for a moment, that what she’s doing is seriously messed up given that she tried to murder her friend like that. She thought she had a chance to slice Alison’s throat – and immediately took the chance. That is not even remotely a sane or balanced state of mind. That’s the mindset Terry Pratchett described in his Discworld “the Truth.” “It wasn’t often you met someone who’d kill you because it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

3: she’s been proven wrong at least once. When she KILLED Furnace. Because he is dead. He woke up with Sodium Pentothal in his system, a bomb on his chest, and in the presence of two people with active grudges against him and one of whom had violently attacked and then “interrogated” him. Kind of like the scene in “Batman Returns” when Micheal Keaton’s Batman comes across the frightened, drugged, confused singer that the Penguin left on the rooftop… who promptly falls off the roof, setting up Batman to be accused of her murder. Which, as with Moonshadow, is “Felony Murder.”

“when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is guilty of murder.”

Just as Furnace would have been guilty of murder if those people endangered by his attempt to melt that bullet had not been protected, so too is Moonshadow guilty of his murder.

4: “Last you checked?” Check again – the “fratboy rapists” she slaughtered are themselves based on RL incidents where the culprits were given slaps on the wrist, had the charges dropped/reduced, or both, because of collusion between the judges and/or D.A. and the accused and/or relatives of the accused. She sliced the throats of the fictional expy of that Stanford twerp, Brock Turner.

And those weren’t just murderers, those were mercenaries – the “defense contractors” hired by people to do nasty things. Killing them means she took away one of their tools. They have others. She has fixed nothing, accomplished nothing, except the joys of killing someone. She didn’t just fail to expose the very real conspiracy of “wealthy and powerful special interest groups have been employing mercenaries to engage in horrible crimes,” she helped cover it up by making sure the mercenaries would never be able to testify. If I were their former employers I’d be thrilled – she’ll never come after me because she’s sloppy and stupid and never did bother to find out who hired them, and I can always hire new mercs to replace the ones she killed.

5: Serial killers invariably look for victims they can justify. In their own sick minds, they’re the HEROES. They’re struggling to work through problems and they do so by… killing. They target streetwalkers because they’re not the only ones who think society is better off without them (the whole “disposable sex worker” trope got started because police generally don’t give a crap – even if a victim survives, escapes, and calls the cops. As happened with a Canadian pig farmer who was feeding his victims to his pigs). They target women who remind them of their abusive mothers (as with Edmund Kemper). They target men because they’re misandrists and believe men hurt them just by being alive and in proximity (as with Aileen Wuornos).

Nobody does anything until they’ve justified it to themselves. Including murderers.

6: Presumption of innocence and due process have everything to do with my characterization of Moonshadow as someone who has decided she is above the law, that she can do whatever she wants, that she doesn’t have to answer to anybody for it. If she had sufficient proof that her victims were guilty, she should have shared it with everyone (not just the police, but also the media and the internet, so as to prevent any attempt to cover up the leaks). The U.S. government has been guilty of executing wrongly convicted inmates for many years, and I don’t think anyone here is going to justify that. It doesn’t make it any better when it’s one person looking at a situation, instantly deciding someone is a bad guy, and happily chirps, “oh boy, here I go killing again.”

Todd

(Oh! Thanks for the idea of numbering ‘graphs! Makes things so much easier! Let’s hope it’s still not eaten as spam.)

1. Specious reasoning, that, depending on an essentialism between “bad research” and one proven use of sodium pentathol.
2. OK, so I’ll leave this, but point out that homosexuality was once regarded as mental illness.
3. She didn’t kill Furnace, though. She did what she could to save him, taking a hit in the process. Did she have a hand in the context of his death? Absolutely. So did Alison and Furnace himself.
4. Really? Where does it say they were based on RL? And I don’t see any definitive proof that there was some conspiracy involved. It was far more likely to have been anti-feminist attitudes.
5. OK, I see what you mean now by “justify”. I myself wouldn’t use the term because it smacks of an inappropriate context.
6. They have nothing to do with Strawman Fallacy.

Arkone Axon

1: The fact that she thought sodium pentothal is even remotely reliable says a great deal about her methodology. It’d be like seeing a “professional gunfighter” who holds their pistol sideways, “gangsta” style. The moment you see a mistake THAT glaring, you can make a safe bet regarding what else they’re likely to do.

2: Homosexuality doesn’t kill people. And it’s actually a bit insulting to draw the comparison – you’re implying that “sexual attraction to persons of the same gender” is no different from “murderous abnormal psychological gratification.” To use the blunt terminology of a southern comedian like Ron White, “a man sucking another man off doesn’t leave someone in the morgue.”

3: As I said, she placed him in a position leading to his death. She drugged him (which is a major felony by itself) after kidnapping him (another major felony) to coerce a confession (also a felony) in the hopes of justifying murdering him (yet another big felony). Even though she didn’t slice his throat, she’s still guilty of Negligent Homicide:

4: “anti-feminist” means “opposed to some of the frankly INSANE things being spouted by certain individuals who have commandeered feminism.” It does not mean “we believe all women need to be raped, every day, to put them in their place,” it means “men are twice as likely to commit suicide, have a shorter life expectancy, and have their needs and issues devalued.” As Wonder Woman would put it: you can be pro-woman without being anti-man. And vice versa.

Whereas those examples I cited were obvious RL incidents, so to dismiss the idea of them not being based on those RL incidents is an act of mental gymnastics roughly on a par with the fangirls who used to insist that FF7’s Sephiroth was secretly the good guy all along.

5: Thank you for acknowledging my point. Incidentally, Pythia said something as well that is actually a very good point in favor of YOUR arguments; scroll up.

6: Not talking about strawman anything, I’m talking about how Moonshadow’s actions are those of the misguided fanatic who insists they’re the hero, even as they spread pain and suffering and then respond to criticism by redoubling their efforts. Simply put: she’s insane, she’s not helping, she’s making things worse.

Todd

1. As far as I’m concerned, you’re putting way too much emphasis on what looks like one use of the drug.
2. What I’m trying to point out is that notions of sanity and insanity have changed over time (and likely will continue to do so) for various reasons, good and bad. The idea you have that Moonshadow is just a vicious psycho is on extremely shaky ground, to put it mildly.
3. Sure; it’s quite obvious that Moonshadow’s committed many crimes. That’s not the point I’m holding.
4. Um, anti-feminism has a . . . much broader application than the highly rarified and, quite frankly, politically right-wing definition you’re holding. As for the RL stuff, you’re putting forward this notion that the actions we’re arguing over in this comic are based in RL, and I’m asking you to show me some proof of this because I haven’t seen any sign of that sort anywhere.
5. –
6. And I was talking about Strawman Something. You don’t want to? OK, then.

Arkone Axon

1: “one use of the drug?” The usage of the drug is itself a felony, performed during the commission of multiple additional felonies. And not “victimless crimes” or trivial mistakes, but actual “harmed another person” crimes.

2: The idea that Moonshadow is a mentally disturbed individual who has caused pain and suffering and is herself clearly miserable, unbalanced, and in need of incarceration both for her own sake and that of others is actually a very solid foundation. I’m not saying she should be thrown into a padded cell to stop her from engaging in lesbian sex, I’m saying she should be thrown into a padded cell to stop her from murdering people in between her sessions with a therapist who can try to help her.

3: That is the point I’m holding. Including the whole “negligent homicide” bit. Which is why my stating “Moonshadow has killed innocent people” is me stating a fact, not asserting a theory.

4: You’re the one who brought up “anti-feminism.” You might have been looking for the term “misogynist,” if you’re wanting a term that translates as “actively hates women and wants to punish them for being female.” As for the RL stuff, it’s fairly obvious that the events in the comic are derived from RL. That makes it relevant, that makes it interesting, and that makes it the work of capable creators who are well read and interested in providing a webcomic to entertain as well as educate. Which is pretty much exactly what their openly declared intentions are.

Todd

1. This is getting way too far away from the original point.
2. –
3. There are, unfortunately, no facts to back up your assertion. Do find me one if you can. Otherwise, this point is done.
4. OK, I see the broad way you’re using RL. I thought you were talking about some specific incident. However, this doesn’t weaken my previous point about conspiracies.

Arkone Axon

1: No, that is the point. She resorted to a method that doesn’t work, while carrying out a strategy that doesn’t work. Because she wanted an excuse to kill people.

“given that she strapped an explosive device to him and had intent to kill him, I’m pretty sure that his death would legally be considered 1st Degree premeditated homicide.”

Yeah ,the point is done. She’s killed innocent people. And hurt innocent people. The point is indeed done.

4:”Conspiracy” doesn’t have to mean a global illuminati. It can also mean small scale collusion between individuals with clout. When you find out that your daughter’s rapist got away with it because their Daddy’s friends with the county prosecutor and goes golfing with a councilman, that’s enough of a conspiracy for more effective heroes to get things done by blowing things wide open.

Today the media is widely distrusted, but back in the 1970s they were extremely well regarded – especially since they had a habit of going after the backroom shenanigans of officials, politicians, police officers, and the like. Do some reading on Mike Royko. The man used to have the rich and powerful call him up and literally BEG him not to run his pieces. He once did two stories on the VA board in short order – first when he told the world about their refusal to pay to rebuild enough of a Vietnam veteran’s face to allow him to eat solid food again, then to tell everyone how the VA board suddenly changed its decision when everyone wanted to know how “getting one’s face blown off by a landmine” was considered “not a service related injury.”

Todd

1. My point has to do with your logic: there is no logical connection between the single use of the drug we’ve seen and your conclusion of shoddy (to no) research. You seem to be displaying a belief in an essentialist notion that a “bad part” of a whole (where that whole can be divisible) immediately and utterly affects/destroys the whole (kind of like “sympathetic magic”).
3. You seem to be confusing or eliding the differences between negligent homicide with the notion that Moonshadow’s research must be of poor quality. I fail to see any connection between the two. I don’t disagree with a charge that could be leveled against Moonshadow just the connection you’re drawing between that and the quality of her research.
4. No, it doesn’t have to be; it could be very local. However, there’s no evidence for this, and it’s at least just as plausible that anti-feminist ideology has to do with the acquittal.

Arkone Axon

1: I’m guessing you’re unaccustomed to participating in potentially dangerous activities such as firearms use or… vehicular driving. First of all: when there’s a particularly egregious mistake (such as driving on the wrong side of the road) it’s safe to assume the person making the mistake is prone to making similar mistakes (which is why you get points marked down on the driving test for lesser offenses… but driving on the wrong side of the road will result in an automatic disqualification). Second: when it’s a potentially dangerous activity… well, as my brother said when he first taught his younger siblings: “Here are the three primary rules of gun safety. If you violate one, I will knock you on your ass. THEN I will tell you what you did wrong.” (and since Moonshadow’s activities have resulted in the deaths of a lot of people, including innocent ones… yeah, her methodology and research are sloppy)

3: You’ve just acknowledged that Moonshadow is indeed guilty of negligent homicide. She’s SLOPPY. Ridiculously so… in the way that RL serial killers tend to be (RL serial killers are less “supergenius doctor cannibals placing victims in Saw deathtraps and secretly working for the incompetent police forces trying to apprehend them” and more “mentally disturbed and often not overly intelligent psychos who chase a girl across three states because, and this is a quote: “part of me wanted to get to know her as a person, and part of me wanted to see what her head would look like on a stick”). The fact that she’s guilty of negligent homicide is indeed proof of her sloppy methodology. At least one innocent person died onscreen because of her sloppy research and methodology. She went after a guy who was innocent because he said some “mean things” about Alison. Instead of using those powers of hers to shadow him, check his computer records, eavesdrop on him with his associates… she literally has all the abilities that intelligence agencies WISH they had available to them, and the best thing she can come up with is “kidnap them, tie them up, then use sodium pentothal and “enhanced interrogation” to get the truth?” SLOPPY AND STUPID.

Todd

1. Your analogy still falls through: assumptions can be made for various reasons (good or bad), but there is still no logical connection. If one commits a criminal act, there is no logical connection between that fact and whether or not one will do so again.
3. Like I said: I’ve never disagreed with the notion that charges could be leveled against Moonshadow, just accusations of sloppiness or insanity based entirely on subjective opinions with no bases in established fact. That’s all you’ve got; you don’t want to hear that, that’s your business

Todd

(Part 1 of 2)

As you can see from my reply to Lisa, I disagree with her, but I’m not accusing her of creating a strawman.

As for your point about a lack of a convincing argument leading to acquittal, was that actually what happened in the story? I don’t recall, but I might have easily missed something. However, I do know that any corruption of the various officials involved was not at all mentioned in the story, so why bring it up? (BTW, I see you haven’t mentioned various ideologies eg anti-feminism that could quite easily have been prevalent enough in enough of the people involved, not to mention the system itself, so as to make an acquittal a reasonably expected result regardless of the prosecution.)

Has Moonshadow really “done nothing to help the situation”? I have my doubts. So long as there is at least one masculinist/anti-feminist out there who has decided against raping a woman for fear of Moonshadow’s retribution, I’d call that a help. Of course, we’ll never really know. Furthermore, will her act positively affect people on a more collective level eg the political? It might or might not; it could even make things worse. We’ll just have to see (and, given this is only a comic-book world with as much a future as its creators want it to have, we might never find out to our satisfaction).

Arkone Axon

What were you saying about “AFAWCT?” Wouldn’t that preclude any assertions of “some random masculinist we’ve never seen might have decided against raping a woman because of Moonshadow being the terror that slices in the night, and therefore she’s done good?”

You literally just brought up a random nameless individual to insert into the storyline like a fanfic author declaring their work to be canonical, claimed that “masculinists” rape women as a matter of course (as opposed to having specific grievances regarding those who have commandeered the idea of feminism as standing for equality and instead turned it into rampant misandry), and then suggested that Moonshadow scared this fanfic character of yours and that this should be presented as a win.

Now, can you have doubts? Sure. But doubts aren’t facts, doubts aren’t proof, and suggesting “well, she might have done some good” does not detract from the fact that SHE’S MURDERING PEOPLE.

And you say you’re having trouble understanding why I bring up the lack of a convincing argument. Let me put it more plainly: Either the jury was unconvinced of the guilt of the accused (which could mean they were in fact innocent, or simply that the prosecution bungled the case, or that the defense attorneys were particularly capable), in which case legally speaking they were innocent kids murdered by a serial killer. OR… they were guilty and then got away with it because their Dads spoke to the judge over drinks at the country club, the judge said it’s okay, boys will be boys, this will be taken care of. In which case there’s still a corrupt and biased judge sitting on the bench and all she’s done is direct sympathy towards her victims and draw attention away from his corruption.

Either way, her actions were wrong, criminal, and stupid.

(Edit: OH! Your post appears to have been the first part of what you posted the other day… and didn’t get posted until 9 hours ago, long after the second half did. Sorry about that.)

Todd

The AFAWCT means “As Far As We Can Tell” ie she might make a mistake in the future, but, just based on what we’ve actually seen in the comic, she hasn’t made one single error.

I brought up the “random, nameless individual” to point out that Moonshadow’s actions might not be non-helpful.

Do I have doubts? Oh, indeed. I’m just pointing out logical errors at the moment (and I don’t think I’ve ever asserted that Moonshadow didn’t murder people; I certainly have no problem with her being called a murderer).

I certainly agree her actions are criminal; as for wrong or stupid, that really just depends on your PoV.

Lisa Izo

That’s not actually how ‘strawman fallacy’ works. Strawman fallacy means you use an supposed argument which someone never made in order to argue with, THAT argument (ie, refuting an argument which was not advanced by your debating opponent), instead of arguing with the actual situation since the actual situation is more difficult to make a good argument against. Arkone was arguing against the actual situation, so it’s not attacking a strawman.

Todd

I disagree that Arkone was arguing against the actual situation. I’ve explained why, and I have no interest in having you or Arkone repeat ad nauseam the definition of strawman, which, so far, has had zero ability to convince me I’ve gotten it wrong.

Link for convenience. Also, he mentions a trial, maybe he was the corrupt judge or something on top of that?

Arkone Axon

That… is actually a plausible theory. And yes, he definitely looks more like an abuser upon looking at that one and the one that follows. On the other hand… I don’t think his wife is happy about how this turned out. Speaking as someone who’s seen plenty of abusive people (both male and female) and abuse victims (both male and female), it would have been much more beneficial to intimidate him into seeking therapy (one thing I’ve noticed is that abusers HATE themselves for what they’re doing to their partners).

Also, it would have been better to expose him – how many wrongly convicted people will never be exonerated now? There are a number of women in jail in RL, right now, because they acted in self defense. Or look at Purvi Patel, the woman in Indiana who was thrown into jail for… having an abortion.

But still, that is a VERY plausible theory. It is a point in Moonshadow’s favor… even though that just makes her actions slightly less stupid, but still wrong.

Tsapki

Clearly that old couple just needed more nerf doors and stairs in their home to keep the clumsy wife from walking into things and getting shiners.

Arkone Axon

So… is Klevin going to start needing nerf doors and stairs?

Vigil

I don’t know, is Alison going to start beating him? I don’t know where you’re going with this.

Arkone Axon

That was me responding to Tsapki’s joke with a joke of my own. Just because Tsapki and I disagree doesn’t mean we have to be angry jerks about it.

Zorae42

I don’t think it was just the wife that was clumsy. She asked why their daughters didn’t visit just before he was killed. Which has some pretty dark/gross implications considering what all the other men she killed had in common….

Arkone Axon

Yeah… kinda reminds me of the opening to “Ring of the Nibelung,” where Siegmund is explaining why he was on the run. Seems he’d shown up at a wedding where the bride wasn’t exactly consenting to the union. So he promptly drew his sword and started hacking about… at which point the bride started crying, because he’d just murdered her own relatives. Because he was so quick with the lethal violence and didn’t stop to make certain he had all the facts or to consider any more viable alternatives

(And then the groom’s kin slit the poor woman’s throat and Siegmund lost his sword and he ran for it, leaving behind a lot of dead people and a bad situation made much, much worse…)

AdamBombTV

And HERES the boyf kidnapping robot… metaphorically speaking

Weatherheight

And no, this isn’t my guilty face at all, shut up…

Weatherheight

Clevin is rockin’ that tux on this page!

Azmodan

Pintsize is actually Moonshadow in disguise.

Duhn duhn duhn.

Arkone Axon

It’d certainly be a better use of her powers than the serial killing, yes.

Alison being passive-aggressive to somebody who isn’t there or some mind-wipe fuckery?
Find out this Friday!
Same mega-time, same mega-channel.

Arkone Axon

I’m going with “instantly on the defensive because she failed to arrest a terrorist leader (or even inform her friends about what was happening), let him do his thing for five years because she was crushing on him, then threw a ceramic mug through his face while dumping him” for $500, Alex.

(And I’m saying that as someone who can readily understand her initial reasoning – those folders of Patrick’s would have certainly made me pause to reevaluate the situation and reconsider who the bad guys are, just like she did. But when her friends find out… she’s got a LOOOOT of explaining to do…)

AshlaBoga

5 years? I think it’s been 2-3. Am I wrong?

Pythia

It’s been 2-2.5 years, she was a freshman at 19, and I think she’s in the 1st semester of her third year now, but she might be in the last semester of her second year. Their superhero game thing ended when she was ~14-15, which means that, if she threw the mug at him at age 20, she let him do his thing for 5-6 years, and then agreed to 2 more before handing him over to the authorities, for a total of 7-8 punishment-free years of roaming around doing whatever he wants.

Dan

That’s a great name for an ex-boyfriend.

GUEST

CALLING IT: NEXT PAGE INVOLVES THE “thinking of you” SPRAY PAINT

About

SFP follows the adventures of a young middle-class American with super-strength, invincibility and an overwhelming sense of social injustice.